What is "the most supportable valuation position"?

The most supportable valuation position is the position within the supportable valuation range that the methodology and evidence most strongly defend. It is neither the highest nor the lowest the evidence allows: it is the position with the strongest reasoning behind it, given the entity, the available documents, and the commercial purpose of the engagement. Where the evidence allows a more favourable position, it is identified. Where the evidence requires a conservative position, it is reported as such.

Why valuation is rarely a single number

Two qualified valuers, using accepted methodologies on the same business, can produce different supportable conclusions. The difference is not opinion: it is methodology selection, evidence weighting, and the commercial purpose of the engagement. A business valued for one purpose may sit at one point on the supportable range; the same business valued at the same date for a different purpose may sit at a different point. Both can be correct.

How the supportable range is identified

We test multiple accepted methodologies (CME, EBITDA multiples, NAV, DCF where appropriate). Each methodology produces a calculated outcome. Across methodologies, the range is the bracket of defensible conclusions the evidence supports. Sensitivity analysis tests how the range moves under different assumption choices (multiple selection, discount rate, add-back treatment, applicable discounts). The supportable range is the framework within which the most supportable position sits.

How the position within the range is selected

The most supportable position is the one the methodology and evidence best defend. The criteria: (1) which methodology is most appropriate for the entity and purpose; (2) which comparable evidence is strongest; (3) which add-back adjustments are documented; (4) which discounts and premia are applicable; (5) which assumptions are most reasonable given the available facts. The position is reasoned in the Valuation Position Analysis section of every report.

Favourable and conservative positions

Where the evidence allows a more favourable supportable position, we identify it. Where the evidence requires a more conservative position, we report it. The favourable position must be defensible: methodology, evidence and reasoning sufficient that a reviewer can see why it is concluded. The conservative position is reported where the evidence does not support a higher conclusion, or where insufficient evidence requires caution. Both are evidence-led. Neither is target-driven.

The line that holds it together

We never agree on a value at intake. We never let client preference influence the analysis. We never reverse-engineer to a target number. The methodology and evidence determine the position. If the most supportable position happens to be commercially favourable to the client, that is a fact about the evidence. If the most supportable position is commercially unfavourable, we report it that way. The fee is fixed at engagement and is not contingent on the outcome.

The starting principle

A business is rarely worth a single number. It is worth a range: and within that range, there is a position the methodology and evidence most strongly defend. That position is what we call the most supportable valuation position. Identifying it is the substantive work of professional valuation. Producing a single number without identifying the range first is the work an online calculator does. Identifying the range without selecting the most supportable position within it is the work an inexperienced analyst does. Both fall short of what tax-purpose valuation actually requires.

How the range gets identified

Capitalisation of Maintainable Earnings produces one outcome. EBITDA multiples produce another. Net Asset Value produces a third. Where appropriate, Discounted Cash Flow produces a fourth. The range across these methodologies is the bracket of defensible conclusions the evidence supports. Sensitivity analysis tests how the range moves under different assumption choices: different multiple selections, different add-back treatments, different discount magnitudes. The output is a documented range, not a guess. The package is set by the annual turnover of the business: a Small Business Valuation is $1,495 + GST under $2 million, a Medium Business Valuation is $2,495 + GST from $2 million to $10 million, and a Large Business Valuation is $3,495 + GST over $10 million. Delivery time starts once payment and all required information have been received.

How the position within the range gets selected

The criteria are evidence-led: (1) which methodology is most appropriate for the entity, evidence available and purpose; (2) which comparable evidence is strongest and most current; (3) which add-back adjustments are documented with supporting evidence; (4) which discounts and premia are applicable and at what magnitude; (5) which assumptions are most reasonable given the available facts. We weight these criteria and conclude at the position the analysis best defends. The reasoning is written into the Valuation Position Analysis section of every report.

Where the favourable position comes from: and where it doesn't

Where the evidence allows a more favourable supportable position than the central point of the range, we identify it and explain why. Maybe the recurring revenue base is stronger than maintainable earnings alone suggests. Maybe the comparable transaction evidence supports a higher multiple than the central case. Maybe the minority discount applicable is at the lower end of the typical range because the class rights are favourable. These are evidence-led reasons. They are not preferences. They are not adjustments to suit the tax outcome. They are what the methodology and facts support.

Where the conservative position comes from

Where the evidence requires a more conservative position than the central point of the range, we report it. Maybe the historical financial performance has volatility that limits the maintainable earnings figure. Maybe key person dependency requires a risk discount. Maybe forecast assumptions cannot be substantiated and DCF cannot be the primary methodology. Maybe limited comparables evidence requires reliance on a single methodology with broader sensitivity range. These also are evidence-led. The conservative position is reported as the most supportable, not the lowest defensible: there is a difference.